DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C.No.166 of 25-08-2021

Decided on : 16.03.2023

Mangal Singh aged about 35 years S/o Sh. Malook Singh, R/o Vill. Margindpura, Tehsil Patti, Distt. TarnTaran now R/o Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

Sunny Photo Studio, Main Bazar, Ghariyala, Tehsil Patti, Distt. TarnTaran through its Prop. Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Major Singh.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Quorum :

Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate.

For opposite party : Ex-parte.

O R D E R

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

1. The complainant Mangal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Sunny Photo Studio (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that his marriage was solemnized on 23.10.2019 in Hotel Saffron, Bathinda and for the purpose of photography and videography, he engaged opposite party. The complainant alleged that he already paid the total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party but the opposite party failed to deliver the Video of the Marriage function to the complainant till date, despite his repeated requests.

3. It is alleged that complainant approached the opposite party many times personally and made seeveral requests to provide the Video of the marriage function but to no effect rather the opposite party kept on putting the matter off under one or the other false pretext. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 23.2.2021 upon the opposite party, but the opposite party failed to give any reply to the said notice. The complainant then got issued a reminder notice on 6.7.2021 but despite that, opposite party failed to deliver the Video of the marriage function to the complainant rather a week ago, the opposite party flatly refused to accede to the requests of the complainant.

4. The complainant alleged that due to the aforesaid act on the part of the opposite party, the complainant suffered from grave mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and has also suffered huge loss of reputation as the relatives of the complainant are asking for the Video of the marriage function from the complainant time and again and further more, the complainant, his wife and family members have also been deprived of enjoying the said moments of their Wedding Ceremony. Thus, he claims damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ from the opposite party.

5. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to immediately provide video of the marriage function of the complaiant or in the alternative refund an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @18% p.a. w.e.f. 23-10-2019 till refund and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- besides Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

6. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to the opposite party but opposite party refused to receive the notice and registered envelop received back with remarks of postal department “Refused to accept”. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party.

7. In exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered into evidence his Affidavit dated 18.8.2022 (Ex.C-1), and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex. C-6).

8. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.

9. To prove his case, complainant has tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit (Ex. C-1), copy of legal notice (Ex. C-2), postal receipt (Ex. C-3), copy of another legal notice (Ex. C-4), postal receipt (Ex. C-5) and photograph of marriage (Ex. C-6), However, a perusal of file shows that complainant has failed to place on record receipt in respect of payment made to the opposite party. However, since the evidence adduced on file in the shape of affidavit and documents is remained un-rebutted as the opposite party intentionally remained absent and failed to put an appearance. As such, failure on the part of the opposite party to handover video of the marriage function to the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service.

10. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to hand-over video of the marriage function of the complainant to him, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to cost.

11. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

12. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    16-03-2023

    (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh )

    Member